The local newspaper has an auto-related section that's mainly ads, with
a few "articles" thrown in that are usually puff pieces with a big chunk
of their content lifted from manufacturer press releases. Yesterday
there was one touting the rollout of the 2013 Accord at a local
dealership.

After pointing out that Honda had been facing increased competition from
American and Korean sedans, the piece quoted the dealership's sales
manager as he proudly touted a new "feature": "Honda's really listened
to what the people want. The biggest complaint had been the road noise.
They've addressed that by getting rid of the double-wishbone front
suspension and going with struts."

I was reminded of H. L. Mencken's definition of democracy as "the theory
that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good
and hard".

"Dave Garrett" wrote
> "...The biggest complaint had been the road noise.
> They've addressed that by getting rid of the double-wishbone front
> suspension and going with struts."
>
> I was reminded of H. L. Mencken's definition of democracy as "the theory
> that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good
> and hard".

I'm apparently one of the common people, very appreciative of reduced road
noise, though I'm not so sure about it at the expense of changing to struts.
What do other "quiet" cars use for front suspension components?

Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in news:MPG.2adb964329b3ff1398a308
@208.90.168.18:
> The local newspaper has an auto-related section that's mainly ads, with
> a few "articles" thrown in that are usually puff pieces with a big chunk
> of their content lifted from manufacturer press releases.

They're /all/ mostly like that. Sometimes they have one or two columnists
producing original and interesting material; I read those and skip the
rest.

> Yesterday
> there was one touting the rollout of the 2013 Accord at a local
> dealership.
>
> After pointing out that Honda had been facing increased competition from
> American and Korean sedans, the piece quoted the dealership's sales
> manager as he proudly touted a new "feature": "Honda's really listened
> to what the people want. The biggest complaint had been the road noise.
> They've addressed that by getting rid of the double-wishbone front
> suspension and going with struts."

That'a an odd comment. There is no connection between the two suspension
designs and road-noise.

>
> I was reminded of H. L. Mencken's definition of democracy as "the theory
> that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good
> and hard".

Mencken's statement had to do with governments, not with consumer-goods
companies or any other private concerns. Plus, in his original quote, there
is no comma.

In article <XnsA0E5BF514A7A0tegger@208.90.168.18>,
Tegger <invalid@example.com> wrote:
> > After pointing out that Honda had been facing increased competition from
> > American and Korean sedans, the piece quoted the dealership's sales
> > manager as he proudly touted a new "feature": "Honda's really listened
> > to what the people want. The biggest complaint had been the road noise.
> > They've addressed that by getting rid of the double-wishbone front
> > suspension and going with struts."
>
>
>
> That'a an odd comment. There is no connection between the two suspension
> designs and road-noise.

Technically, there is.

If they make a cheaper suspension, they can take some of that money and
put it toward noise suppression--and still keep up their #1 goal,
corporate profits at any cost.

On 10/07/2012 02:34 PM, Howard Lester wrote:
> "Dave Garrett" wrote
>
>> "...The biggest complaint had been the road noise.
>> They've addressed that by getting rid of the double-wishbone front
>> suspension and going with struts."
>>
>> I was reminded of H. L. Mencken's definition of democracy as "the theory
>> that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good
>> and hard".
>
> I'm apparently one of the common people, very appreciative of reduced
> road noise, though I'm not so sure about it at the expense of changing
> to struts. What do other "quiet" cars use for front suspension components?

well, the acura tl is pretty quiet - that still has wishbones.

bottom line, the "noise" excuse is complete bull - there is no
engineering connection between wishbones and increased noise. if
anything, it's the other way around because wishbones are a less direct
sound path.

On 10/07/2012 05:50 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<XnsA0E5BF514A7A0tegger@208.90.168.18>,
> Tegger<invalid@example.com> wrote:
>
>>> After pointing out that Honda had been facing increased competition from
>>> American and Korean sedans, the piece quoted the dealership's sales
>>> manager as he proudly touted a new "feature": "Honda's really listened
>>> to what the people want. The biggest complaint had been the road noise.
>>> They've addressed that by getting rid of the double-wishbone front
>>> suspension and going with struts."
>>
>>
>>
>> That'a an odd comment. There is no connection between the two suspension
>> designs and road-noise.
>
> Technically, there is.

it's not a "technical" connection in the engineering sense, just the
financial sense.

>
> If they make a cheaper suspension, they can take some of that money and
> put it toward noise suppression--and still keep up their #1 goal,
> corporate profits at any cost.

i still say their "ex" frod usa chairman is a trojan horse continuing to
work for detroit and bent on honda's destruction. and he's right on target.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
news:elmop-DA5B32.20503707102012@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <XnsA0E5BF514A7A0tegger@208.90.168.18>,
> Tegger <invalid@example.com> wrote:
>
>
> There is no connection between the two
>> suspension designs and road-noise.
>
> Technically, there is.
>
> If they make a cheaper suspension, they can take some of that money
> and put it toward noise suppression--and still keep up their #1 goal,
> corporate profits at any cost.
>

Honda, like all other manufacturers, went to strut front-ends on lower-end
vehicles in order to help keep costs down. The primary impetus for this was
safety and emissions regulations, which combine to /dramatically/ raise the
cost of developing and bulding a car. Those costs are less onerous if the
car has a higher sell-price and higher margin, but they're a killer for the
low-end of the market.

As for "corporate profits at any cost": Any company which tries that is
doomed to failure. Profits come from satisfied customers. Unsatisfied
customers take their money elsewhere, resulting in eventual bankruptcy of
the indiscriminately-cost-cutting company.

ALL companies, just like ALL families and ALL individuals, MUST spend less
than they take in, so profit is an /absolutely necessary/ goal for
everybody, including Honda.

On 10/08/2012 03:30 PM, Tegger wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty"<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
> news:elmop-DA5B32.20503707102012@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> In article<XnsA0E5BF514A7A0tegger@208.90.168.18>,
>> Tegger<invalid@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> There is no connection between the two
>>> suspension designs and road-noise.
>>
>> Technically, there is.
>>
>> If they make a cheaper suspension, they can take some of that money
>> and put it toward noise suppression--and still keep up their #1 goal,
>> corporate profits at any cost.
>>
>
>
>
> Honda, like all other manufacturers, went to strut front-ends on lower-end
> vehicles in order to help keep costs down. The primary impetus for this was
> safety and emissions regulations, which combine to /dramatically/ raise the
> cost of developing and bulding a car.

"safety" is basically just making cars heavy and adding airbags.
airbags don't cost that much to the manufacturer, and making the car
heavy costs only the materials, and that's almost nothing extra.

"emissions" is basically just the cat [which has been there for more
than 30 years already] and sensors [see above]. the rest is software,
and that effectively costs nothing.

> Those costs are less onerous if the
> car has a higher sell-price and higher margin, but they're a killer for the
> low-end of the market.

any mba course will teach you about product differentiation. i.e. make
the "high end" product with the high price "different" to the low end
stuff. otherwise nobody will pay the premium.

but, this works only if you have a lock on the market. honda don't,
they have loads of competition. making their product generic and
indistinguishable from the competition, and trying to charge a premium
price - well, that's where there's an obvious disconnect that's either
the product of stupidity, or a trojan horse.

>
> As for "corporate profits at any cost": Any company which tries that is
> doomed to failure. Profits come from satisfied customers. Unsatisfied
> customers take their money elsewhere, resulting in eventual bankruptcy of
> the indiscriminately-cost-cutting company.
>
> ALL companies, just like ALL families and ALL individuals, MUST spend less
> than they take in, so profit is an /absolutely necessary/ goal for
> everybody, including Honda.

there's profits and there's margins. woolmort make ultra-skinny
margins. much skinnier than honda. but they make HUGE profits because
they have successfully differentiated themselves and have huge volumes.
honda are making themselves generic, not different, and they're losing
volume. they're going to get eaten by frod and toyota. and i think the
frod part is by design.

HondaCarForum.com is not affiliated with Honda Motor Company in any way. Honda Motor Company does not sponsor, support, or endorse HondaCarForum.com in any way. Copyright/trademark/sales mark infringements are not intended or implied.